How do they get away with it

CLAPTON

ILW wrote: »

Why would they want to do that? The banks are not a charity, they are in business to make a profit. It would also be unfair on the lower risk borrowers who do not use a credit card for cash withdrawals

You have chosen to copy only one sentence of three.
The others clearly explained my position.

If the CC are really concerned about the risk of cash withdrawing customers, then they can ban cash withdrawals, or restrict the amount etc. (as in fact some do).

CLAPTON

aron wrote: »

Am i reading that bit right? Because YOU think it's unfair it should be stopped? Well that should make the banks stand up and take notice.

I'm not sure of your point here.

Are you saying I/we are not allowed to express a view because it's unlikely than the bank will immediately change their policies?

'Fair' T&Cs is a legal issue in UK law. I don't know on any legal test of this particular condition and am expressing my view on the matter.

A little sarcasm is not a very constructive way forward.

josephineparis

Hi I would like to thank everyone who has taken the time to reply to my dilemma. For those who said I should have read the leaflet, yes, you are right, I hold my hand up to that, the circumstances around this time was I was not well, no again no excuse, but sometimes judgement is not as good. I am not trying to get out of paying either, I have always paid what I have owed all my life as it has been work or want (which has been my motto through my life after working full time until aged 58 (bar 3 years having my daughter) I have earned my full state pension in my own right and never had the luxury of part time working. Why am I different from anyone else, I am not, I just believe it is not logical and you have to have principles in this life otherwise it is a dog eat dog country (so to speak), Use this as an example - a person purchases a three piece suite for £3,000 over a 3 year period, they pay the full amount owing after a 8 month period, but still have to pay interest on the rest of the amount. I rest my case!!! I am sticking up for those people who are logical enough to see that something is not right!!!! So enough of attacking me as a person I am not into amateur dramatics as to go crying down a phone
I don`t need to, I fight with words - if I do not get anywhere with the Financial Ombudsman that is fine, but at least I have tried to change something which I believe to be wrong and is illogical - and yes on principle too!!!

withnell

If you need cash and want it at a purchase rate, then ask a mate who runs a shop if they'll run you through a transaction for the required amount - the cash advance fee you'd normally pay should cover their merchant costs, and then buy them a pint and everyone's happy!

ILW

I cannot see what the OP is going to take to the FOS. Strikes me as similar to to expecting to make a complaint about the price of beans at Tesco after you have bought them. If you didn't like the price you should not have used the service. Or am I missing something?

josephineparis

You are missing something - those replies who said it - you have not read my last thread reply this morning properly. What is the matter with having
principles - this is why the country is in such a state of affairs. People do not have them any more, or those who do, get told they are naive and we all have the freedom and right (or I thought) to challenge (as the bank charge person did). No one can knock someone from trying to change something, if everyone remained complacent, nothing would ever change. I have a right to try, even though comments are negative. To me a fair way would the monthly payment be split between purchases and cash so the cash figure is decreasing. It is no big deal!!

josephineparis

It would be much fairer if the monthly payment was split in two so that the cash figure as well as the purchase figure is decreasing. this is more logical to me than paying purchases first, then the cash figure.
Thank you for coming back with a common sense question. :A